The Liverpool Care Pathway is meant for patients who are within days or weeks of dying from terminal illnesses, and consisted of palliative care to ease the suffering of the remainder of their lives. It is a decision regularly taken in the US medical system too when the benefits of medical interventions to prolong life (usually for patients who are no longer conscious) are outweighed by the suffering that aggressive treatments cause. Someone who is well into their 80s suffering from a debilitating condition that they will never recover from would usually rather, given the choice, die peacefully at home surrounded by their loved ones rather than spend weeks in pain and suffering only to die anyway.

The controversy here is that one hospital was choosing it for patients without informing the family. Naturally this caused an outcry, and was not how the pathway was meant to be implemented. So when it became public knowledge, there was an enquiry and now it will be illegal.

Beck also says that Obamacare was modelled on the British system. Really? Either he has no clue, or is wilfully misleading his audience. If I get cancer under the British system, I get treatment. Under Obamacare it still depends on you having private health insurance. Under the British system, even large employers don’t have to worry about providing healthcare for their employees, because it is provided for everyone. Under the British system treatments offered are based on medical evidence, under the American system, private insurers still get to deny certain treatments. Obamacare starts to at least address this issue by setting minimum coverage requirements.

More people will get healthcare under Obamacare. Competition between private insurers increases. Everybody wins.

]]>By: Anonymoushttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188450
Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:00:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188450At Dr appointment in 2010: Told my doc that my federal government was going to kill me through denying healthcare and we probably should plan on any severe illness not being treated. And his short answer? “Yes”.
The women in my family live to well over 100 and great grandmother was 105 and recalled the Civil War; so perhaps I will have the last laugh.
]]>By: Sandiehttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188408
Sat, 17 Nov 2012 05:30:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188408If they are going to kill these people, it is more humane to euthanize them gently … but no, they will make them suffer from dehydration and starvation, like they did with Terri Schiavo. If it comes to that with me, just shoot me in the head when I’m not looking.
]]>By: BentGhazihttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188287
Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:01:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188287This will be ignored by Obama and his crew – they don’t understand the intricacies of medicine and the human ability to adapt and overcome even some of the most profound damage. It’s the human will to survive that they ignore, and they think if it has no value to them that it is OK to destroy and dispose of it. It’s their universal standard applied equally to The Constitution, the expressed will of the voters, and the people themselves.

Remember how the cliques in school worked? This is how the Obama regime functions.

A majority of votes means 50.1% of the total votes. In multi party systems the votes get fractured amongst many different parties. There is no clear majority. In other words, if a party gets 28% of the total popular vote, and the next highest gets 22% and the rest split the rest of the votes, it’s the 28% party that forms the government. Does that clarify things?

You’re correct about the geographical location being good for what they wanted to do in regards to rail transportation hubs and also central location to other countries, but it was also based on the cultural prejudices of the location too. They could have located them in Russia because the Russians also had centuries of cultural bias against the jews. Both Poland and Russia always had the most hatred of the Jews throughout a few centuries of history. The western states also had this bias in varying degrees., but not to the extent (historically proven time and time again) of those two eastern countries. So obviously the Nazis based their decision on more than one factor. They may have been crazy but they weren’t stupid. My comments have been based on historical and cultural facts, and I wasn’t rehashing any world war tactical strategies. I will point out though, that Russia wasn’t selected for more than one or two camps because it was too close to the front lines. Guess that’s another factor in the decision making.

Maybe I’ve read too much history over the years.

]]>By: SoTherehttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188172
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:46:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188172“That means the party with the most votes attains power, not the one with the majority of votes.”

Do you see what’s wrong with that statement? Also, your statement about the Poles hating the Jews the most so they had the camps in Poland is pure nonsense. The reason was purely geographical.

You have some strange ideas about why things happened but accurate historical fact isn’t going to be changed on a forum like this.

Thanks for your post but I’m not going to rehash WWII with you. It’s not going to be productive in solving our problems here.

]]>By: Anonymoushttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188164
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:22:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188164 Sorry, meant the message to go as a reply to Todd. System mixed it up somehow.
]]>By: Anonymoushttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188157
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:03:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188157Yes and no. Hitler didn’t form his government with a majority of votes. They had a multi party system not unlike parliamentary systems. That means the party with the most votes attains power, not the one with the majority of votes. There was plenty of other dirty dealings going on behind the scene at the time. Essentially Hitler stole the power. After that he quickly outlawed the other parties (the communist party first – only smart thing he ever did) and thereby attaining true dictatorial power. The rest was a brilliant exercise in national opinion shaping. Goebbels must have studied Machiavelli very well, as well as some of Wilson’s cohorts. Machiavelli taught that the best way to rally the people behind a cause it to find and identify an enemy. Use nationalism to bring cohesion of purpose. The US has done it in their own way (think of WW1 and 2) as well as notice how China has been pushing nationalism now. It creates mass effect, when internal politics and troubles can make the population object or revolt. He directed a carefully crafted campaign that used the age old European prejudice against the Jews to the Nazi’s favour. One of the reasons most of the out and out extermination camps were located in Poland was the fact that the Poles were some of the most vehement haters of the Jews already in Europe. Less local disruptions and opposition, not withstanding the small amount of brave Polish underground fighters.

Yes, the Nazi’s also used the politics on envy. namely, how the Jews were rich, how they were supposedly ruling all the governments inside the previous German Republic and also around the world. How everything was the Jews fault.

The Nazis were a purely socialist government. They practiced early indoctrination of their kids. They regulated everything in people’s lives. But unlike Obama’s crowd, they ruled with an iron fist and through fear. And they weren’t fooling around. Your current socialist rulers do things more subtly. But think how they have used class warfare in their propaganda, which is just the politics of envy. Think how the Homeland Security apparatus is growing slowly almost unnoticed, by new executive orders. Think how the democratically elected Congress and Senate have become virtually irrelevant. Think how the mass media and the press have been used as tools to spread the propaganda. Draw direct comparisons to how the Nazis, and yes the Soviets too, used the educational system to, at best, build future generations of party members, and at worst, a future population that won’t stand in their way. How thought and speech that doesn’t conform is condemned and eliminated.

I’ll end with this famous quote:

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

]]>By: Anonymoushttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188155
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:54:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188155Not sure what you mean. I don’t see any link.
]]>By: Anonymoushttp://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/15/yay-england-puts-some-restrictions-on-death-panels/#comment-188153
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:21:00 +0000/?p=40245#comment-188153 When I had step kids 20 years ago I’d have spend time every night to de-program them from the crap they had been taught in school that day. I couldn’t believe the stuff that was pounded into their head daily. Our schools up here have been totally PC for over almost 40 years. The kids don’t learn much about reading n writing and arithmetic. It’s all about how to get along, how to be socially diverse, how the teachers unions are only in it for the kids, how to be perfect little socialist drones. History gets re-written and shoved into their little heads. How our socialist parties are the ones who are the best. You name it, it’s total indoctrination. They started putting rubber machines into the school washrooms a long time ago. They start sex ed in elementary school at a very low grade. They removed religion in the classroom decades ago. And obviously, we never did have to pledge allegiance even in my time. It’s one big grand social experiment. But it has worked.

Over in Korea the college kids love to riot and burn things down. But once they grow up and become useful members of society they regain their senses and are for the most part conservative. It wasn’t as bad over here in North America. Some collage agers were conservative, and most lefties eventually grew up and became conservative. Age and wisdom go together. But now, the majority remain wedded to their early indoctrination. That’s why I say it’s a whole new world, which true conservatives have to learn to adapt to, and find a way to thrive. It’s possible.